Opportunity Zones and A Possible 2026 Tax Surprise

The 2016 Tax Cut and Jobs Act introduced a new provision to the Code - the qualified opportunity zone – sometimes called an “OZ.” I suspect that there was some humor while drafting the legislation, as here is the Code section:

         26 U.S. Code § 1400Z-1 – Designation

(a)      Qualified opportunity zone defined

For the purposes of this subchapter, the term “qualified opportunity zone” means a population census tract that is a low-income community that is designated as a qualified opportunity zone.

Yep: 140 OZ.

There are different technical terms in this area; For example, “QOZ business property” would include tangible business property; “QOZ business” would include an active trade or business where substantially all of the tangible property is QOZ business property; and “QOZ Fund” would be an investment vehicle – can be a corporation but usually a partnership – used to pool funds for investment in OZs.

For this post we will use the generic term “OZ.”

BTW, if you are presently in an OZ, there is a tax event in 2026 that you must be aware of. We will discuss the issue below.

Let’s discuss the following topics: 

     (1)          What are OZs?

(2)          Pre-2027 OZs

(3)          Post-2026 OZs

(4)          Gains reported through Schedule K-1

(5)          Another tax form

(6)          An example

What are OZs?

Introduced with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017, OZs were and are an effort to redirect private capital into historically overlooked economic areas. These areas (“zones”) were identified by the individual states and thereafter certified by the Treasury Secretary, a process which stretched into 2019.

There are – in general – two ways to invest in an OZ: a direct investment in a trade or business that operates within an OZ or in real estate located within an OZ; or an indirect investment via a fund which does the same.

Remember that an OZ’s purpose is to generate new investment. An intuitive example is starting a new business in an OZ zone. Buying an existing business can also work, but you must be willing to spend at least as much on new assets as you are spending to buy the existing assets.  Real estate can certainly work, but just buying an existing building or raw land will not suffice. The Code wants to see substantial improvement of the existing real estate. You are either renovating or building new if you want to OZ.

OZs have been compared to Section 1031 tax-free exchanges, but they actually operate quite differently. For example, to obtain the full benefit of a Section 1031, one has to reinvest (at least) the full sales price of the real estate sold. OZs are very different: one has to reinvest only the gain portion of the proceeds, not the total proceeds.

EXAMPLE: Let’s say you sell a building for $12 million with a gain of $3.5 million.

If you want a (full) Section 1031 like-kind exchange, you will have to invest at least $12 million (and meet other requirements) in replacement real estate.

If you want a (full) OZ, you will have to invest $3.5 million in an OZ-located business, real estate, or a fund that does that for you.

You see what powers the OZ: you must have a capital gain somewhere on your return. It does not matter what type of taxpayer you are. An individual, decedent, corporation, trust or estate will qualify – as long as you have capital gain as an admission ticket.

BTW your OZ investment must be equity. It cannot be debt back to you, much to the disappointment of tax planners nationwide.

And you have 180 days after the sale date to get the investment done. You cannot invest before the sale date. A Section 1031 can do that but not an OZ.

The driving force behind OZs are two potential tax breaks: one a tax deferral and the other an outright tax exclusion. These two can vary depending upon whether one invested in 2026 or earlier or invests in 2027 and later.

Pre-2027 OZs

(1)          The tax deferral

a.     Taxes on the underlying sale are not payable until December 31, 2026 (or when you sell the OZ, if earlier).

b.    There is a bonus for holding on to the OZ.

                                       i.     Only 90% of the gain will be taxable if you hold for at least 5 years.

                                     ii.     That changes to 85% if you hold for at least 7 years.

1.    COMMENT: I doubt that we will see many 7-years as the rules were not finalized until 2019.

c.     If you have a pre-2027, you will owe tax on December 31, 2026, unless you sold the property previously.

                                       i.     If you haven’t sold, you may want to start freeing-up cash for tax.

 (2)          The tax exclusion

a.     This one is tricky: all gain AFTER the original sale AND before December 31, 2047 is tax-free IF you hold the replacement property for at least 10 years.

                                       i.     Yep, the 2047 throws me too. I presume the 2047 has something to do with how the CBO scored the tax bill.

                                     ii.     If not sold by then, one steps-up basis in the property to its December 31, 2047 fair market value.

                                   iii.     Let’s be frank: all we are after is to hold for at least 10 years. 2047 is an after-thought, if it is even a thought.

b.    Example: You sell something in 2026 for a $1 million gain. You reinvest the $1 million and sell the replacement property 11 years later for a $2 million gain (totaling $3 million in gains over the transaction cycle - congrats). You will pay tax on the $1 million in 2026 – no one escapes 2026. You however will not pay tax on the subsequent $2 million, as you would have held the replacement property for the (actually, more than) required 10 years.

 (3)          Tax planners are a tricky lot

a.     Can one rollover the gain otherwise taxable at December 31, 2026 and defer the tax one more time?

                                       i.     In the preceding example, that would be the $1 million.

b.    The IRS was clear, blunt, and concise: NO!

                                       i.     No two bites at the same apple.

                                     ii.     The cite for the tax nerds is IRS Notice 2026-40.

Post-2026 OZs  

 (1)          The big change is getting rid of that one-size-fits-all-tax-recognition-date (of December 31, 2026). The new rules say that you will owe tax on the deferred gain on the 5^th anniversary of when you invested the gain.

a.     Makes more sense to me. I suspect that the original December 31, 2026 date had more to do with Congress being unsure whether the Code section would even be renewed.

 (2)          You still have the 10% gain exclusion if you hold the OZ for at least 5 years.

 (3)          However, there is no longer a 15% exclusion.

 (4)          Congress replaced that 2047 nonsense with a 30-year anniversary of the investment date.

a.     Once again, do not get caught-up here. What we are after is to hold for at least 10 years.

 (5)          Congress provided a specialized break for rural OZs.

a.     The 10% gain exclusion is 30% instead.

b.    Rural is described (generally) as 50,000 people or less.

Gains reported through Schedule K-1

One has 180 days to invest capital gains into an OZ.

How does that rule work when the capital gain is reported via a Schedule K-1?

If you sell an asset personally, you are (likely) aware of the sale and its sale date. You can more easily work with the 180-day window.

A sale through a passthrough entity (a partnership or S corporation, for example) can be more problematic. The passthrough may do an excellent job of alerting one of the sale and gain; it is equally likely that it may not. Take a partnership that extends its return, for example. As the tax preparer for a partner, my first knowledge of that gain may occur in September when the extended K-1 arrives. That would – without some relief – eliminate an OZ roll as a viable planning option.

So the Regulations provided relief.

First, the passthrough entity itself may decide to reinvest into an OZ. If so, then the 180 days begins with the exact date of sale. This would, of course, take the passthrough owners out of it.

Second, the entity may decide not to directly invest and instead distribute the gain to its passthrough owners. Each owner can decide whether or not to invest, as one owner does not bind another. However, if one does invest, when does the 180-day window start?

The passthrough owner has three options:

(1)          The actual date of the sale (of course);

(2)          The last day of the passthrough entity’s taxable year (most likely December 31);

(3)          The unextended due date of the passthrough entity return (most likely March 15).  

I am leaning toward Option (3) as my default.

Another tax form

There has to be a capital gain to power an OZ, so expect your return to include a Schedule D (where capital gains are reported) and perhaps Form 8949 (providing supplemental detail to the Schedule D).

Reinvest the gain into an OZ and you will add this beauty to your tax return:  

It has four parts, and you will attach (and update) the form each year as the OZ goes through its life cycle - from acquisition to disposition.

An example

Let’s walk through what happens depending on whether one has a pre-2027 or post-2026 OZ.

EXAMPLE: You have a $7.5 million sale with a gain of $1.5 million.

Pre-2027 

          (1)          You sold in 2025.

(2)          You bought the OZ in 2026.

(3)          The $1.5 million gain can be deferred only until December 31, 2026. Sorry.

(4)          There is no 10% or 15% exclusion, as you hit the gain recognition date (December 31, 2026) well before any 5- or 7-year anniversary.

a.     Had you sold and bought in 2019, however, you would qualify for the 7-year 15% exclusion.

(5)          However, the 10-year exclusion is still possible. You would keep the OZ, pay the tax in 2026 and hold it for (at least) 10 years. If you do, any further gain (that is, beyond the $1.5 million you already paid tax on) would be tax-free.  

Post-2026 

          (1)          You sell in 2027.

(2)          You buy the OZ in 2027.

(3)          Tax on the $1.5 million is deferred for 5 years. You will not pay tax until sometime in 2032.

(4)          You will get a 10% exclusion at the 5-year anniversary, meaning that only $1,350,000 of the gain will be taxable. (The 10% becomes 30% if you reinvest in a rural OZ).

(5)          Same as the pre-2027, the 10-year exclusion is possible.  

Closing thoughts  

There are some nice tax features to an OZ, but remember that we are talking about investments. Not all investments make sense to all investors. An OZ might appeal to a business owner recognizing a large capital gain upon the sale of his/her business. An OZ would not appeal to a well-maintained older CPA who sold his practice via a 5-year compensation-as-purchase arrangement.  

This is a longer-term investment. The Code is straightforward about this with its 5-year, 7-year and 10-year thresholds.   

Be sure to consider state taxes. We have discussed the federal tax considerations, but your individual state may or may not follow the federal rules.  

Do not overlook the routine tax reporting of an OZ. If you start an OZ business as a single-member LLC, for example, you will be filing a Schedule C with your annual personal return. If the LLC is instead owned by a partnership in which are a partner, then you will report the K-1 every year on Schedule E. Yes, the December 31, 2026/5-year/7-year/10-year stuff is also out there, but that is in addition to the routine annual reporting.  

And remember: if you already own an OZ, hopefully your tax advisor has been in contact about (a) whether the December 31, 2026 deadline matters to you and (b) if it does, how much it matters. If this is you, you likely have deferred taxes due for 2026.

Happy Halloween

 

“Pay your TAB Act”

I am looking at the following:

It is sponsored by Laura Friedman, a U.S. Representative from southern California. You can probably guess which party.

This proposed bill would create the following:

(a)   A new excise tax of 23.8%

(b)  On “covered” loans

(c)   To the extent all covered loans exceed $1 million.

I presume the 23.8% comes from the maximum capital gains rate (20%) plus the Obamacare net investment tax (3.8%).

Not sure about the $1 million. It does appear to shield the average person, but, then again, I remember when principal residence mortgage interest was deductible without limit; then limited to debt of $1 million; and now limited to debt of $750 grand. No grand point here - just saying that it is difficult to go through life without knowing history.

A “covered” loan would exclude:

(1)  Home acquisition loans

(2)  Home equity loans under $3 million

(3)  Vehicle loans under $100 grand

(4)  Certain education loans

(5)  Trade or business loans

(6)  Certain margin loans

I am not immediately feeling a home equity loan of $3 million.

Same comment on spending $100 grand for a car.

Not my clowns, not my circus, but let’s continue.

In the contemporary spirit of reporting any economic pulse to the fisc, there would of course be Form 1099 reporting.

Lines of credit would be rudely treated, as the 23.8% tax would be due on the maximum allowable borrowing limit, not the amount you actually borrow. You may want to sleep on that before you sign up.

There is some relief to avoid taxing the same loan twice. For example, if you sell a car (with a loan) and buy a car (with a loan), you would be permitted to deduct tax paid (on the loan) on the car sold. Unfortunately, the deduction would be a capital loss, meaning a possible deduction limit of $3,000 per year because Congress has failed to adjust this limit for inflation since 1977. To put that into context, the average price of a new home in 1977 was under $60 grand.

I assume the proposed bill is pointed at wealth and its distribution in society. I also assume that wealth is defined as anyone-having-more-than-Laura-Friedman-or-her-House-staffers, as that seems to be the repetitive refrain to such economically subliterate bleating. It gets - frankly – irritating to be scolded by people we would not introduce to our friends.

Many if not most of us understand the need to deossify wealth concentration and maintain lanes for economic mobility. That is, for example, why we have gift and estate taxes. In isolation, they are a minimal addition to annual tax revenues, and one could credibly debate whether they are worth the complexity lobbed into the tax Code. They are however an evergreen font of professional fees for tax lawyers and CPAs - me included.

Likewise, many if not most of us recognize an accelerating negative Flynn effect in society. A critic might point to Congress as a vivid example. If we keep regressing, these people will have to rediscover fire.

I miss when southern California contributed desirable things to the country, such as movies we actually wanted to watch.

 

Is Sending A Form Taxpayer Self-Assessment?

 

There are times we need to remember that we are working with law.

Words in law can have very specific meanings.

Let’s look at three Code sections.

Code § 6201 - Assessment authority

(a) Authority of Secretary 

 

The Secretary is authorized and required to make the inquiries, determinations, and assessments of all taxes (including interest, additional amounts, additions to the tax, and assessable penalties) imposed by this title, or accruing under any former internal revenue law, which have not been duly paid by stamp at the time and in the manner provided by law. Such authority shall extend to and include the following:

(1)  Taxes shown on return

The Secretary shall assess all taxes determined by the taxpayer or by the Secretary as to which returns or lists (or payments under section 6225(c)(2)(B)(i) are made under this title.

Code § 6211 - Definition of a deficiency

(a) In general

For purposes of this title in the case of income, estate, and gift taxes imposed by subtitles A and B and excise taxes imposed by chapters 41, 42, 43, and 44 the term "deficiency" means the amount by which the tax imposed by subtitle A or B, or chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 exceeds the excess of—

(1) the sum of

(A) the amount shown as the tax by the taxpayer upon his return, if a return was made by the taxpayer and an amount was shown as the tax by the taxpayer thereon, plus

(B) the amounts previously assessed (or collected without assessment) as a deficiency, over—

(2) the amount of rebates, as defined in subsection (b)(2), made.

Code § 6213 - Restrictions applicable to deficiencies; petition to Tax Court

(a) Time for filing petition and restriction on assessment

Within 90 days, or 150 days if the notice is addressed to a person outside the United States, after the notice of deficiency authorized in section 6212 is mailed  (not counting Saturday, Sunday, or a legal holiday in the District of Columbia as the last day), the taxpayer may file a petition with the Tax Court for a redetermination of the deficiency. Except as otherwise provided in section 6851, 6852, or 6861 no assessment of a deficiency in respect of any tax imposed by subtitle A, or B, chapter 41, 42, 43, or 44 and no levy or proceeding in court for its collection shall be made, begun, or prosecuted until such notice has been mailed to the taxpayer, nor until the expiration of such 90-day or 150-day period, as the case may be, nor, if a petition has been filed with the Tax Court, until the decision of the Tax Court has become final. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 7421(a), the making of such assessment or the beginning of such proceeding or levy during the time such prohibition is in force may be enjoined by a proceeding in the proper court, including the Tax Court, and a refund may be ordered by such court of any amount collected within the period during which the Secretary is prohibited from collecting by levy or through a proceeding in court under the provisions of this subsection. The Tax Court shall have no jurisdiction to enjoin any action or proceeding or order any refund under this subsection unless a timely petition for a redetermination of the deficiency has been filed and then only in respect of the deficiency that is the subject of such petition. Any petition filed with the Tax Court on or before the last date specified for filing such petition by the Secretary in the notice of deficiency shall be treated as timely filed.

Let’s talk about Ken and Juli Walker.

They filed a joint tax return for 2018.They reported adjusted gross income of approximately $110 grand, requesting a federal refund of approximately $2,100.

They left something out, however: Marketplace insurance for which they had received advance premium payments of $20,904.

COMMENT: The Marketplace refers to the Affordable Care Act, also known as Obamacare. One guesstimates his/her income for the upcoming year, and - if income is low enough - one is entitled to a subsidy. The subsidy can be handled one of two ways: first, as a monthly reduction of any premium otherwise due; second, as additional tax paid-in when filing the return next year. The advantage to the first is immediate reduction of premiums due now. The advantage to the second is dry powder in case one is over-subsidized. I do not immediately recall a client electing the second option.   

There is a potential problem, though. The subsidy is based on your income, and you are guessing at your income when you request the subsidy. Eventually you have to settle-up this guess by attaching a reconciliation to your tax return - Form 8962 – calculating what your subsidy should have been had you used the actual, final numbers on your tax return. If actual income is lower, you probably have a refund coming. If actual income is higher, you are probably writing a check to the IRS.

In September 2019 the IRS sent a notice requesting Form 8962.

In December 2019 the Walkers sent the 8962.

The IRS processed the form and in March 2020 sent a notice of assessment for $20,904, fully attributable to the ACA subsidy.

By October 2021 interest and penalties had swelled the balance to $27,297. The IRS issued a Notice of Intent to Levy.

The Walkers requested a Collection Due Process hearing.

COMMENT: The Notice of Intent to Levy starts a 30-day calendar on the taxpayer’s ability to stop the lien, which the Walkers did by requesting a CDP hearing.  Mind you, a CDP hearing is not an end-all. For example, one generally cannot contest the existence of the liability itself in a CDP. One would have gone through numerous notices to get to this point, and the IRS would have lost patience. If the taxpayer wants to contest the liability, he/she will have to consider alternatives such as audit reconsideration or an offer in compromise. The IRS wants a payment program as the product of a CDP hearing.

The Walkers requested an installment agreement. The reason they gave was as follows:

Taxpayers do not believe that they agreed to this assessment and do not understand it. If the assessment is correct, taxpayers dispute the penalties because of the IRS’s inactivity on the matter during the pandemic. If there is a liability, taxpayers request an installment agreement.”

There was back and forth, and in January 2024 the (IRS) Settlement Officer decided that the Walkers owed the tax. She did allude to the need for the taxpayers to do something more if they wanted to contest the tax liability itself:

Beside your general statement, you did not submit an amended return or a substantive reconsideration request.”

The taxpayers – surprisingly – withdrew their request for an installment agreement.

At this point, I would normally lose hope for the Walkers. I do not see an immediate way to avoid repaying the excess subsidy, but I nonetheless would have pressed for a payment plan. I would also have requested penalty abatement, as you won’t receive one without asking.

But there is a major technical issue here: had the IRS checked all the boxes to be able to collect the tax?

Let’s go back to the Code sections at the beginning of this post.

Section 6201 addresses what happens when you send in a return showing a tax liability: the system self-assesses. The IRS will ride piggyback on that assessment. Easy. Makes sense.

That is not what happened with the Walkers. The return as originally filed showed a refund, not a liability. The Walkers never filed a return that showed a liability. The Walkers sent a Form (8962) to the IRS, which the IRS processed and somehow generated a liability.

Question: did sending that 8962 create a liability that could be assessed?

We need to be careful with words here. No question the 8962 created a number that – when combined with other numbers on the return – resulted in a liability. What it did not do is show a liability on its own power. Somebody had to do math.

Here is an example: what if the taxpayer had inadvertently omitted estimated tax payments exceeding the subsidy recapture shown on Form 8962? There would be no additional tax, and there would be an additional refund instead.

Here is the Court:

However, we reject respondent’s additional contention that petitioners’ completion of Form 8962 reflects additional tax due which may be assessed under section 6201.”

If this is not an assessment under Section 6201, what is it?

It is a deficiency under Section 6211.

So what?

Look at the italicized portion of Section 6213 above.

… no levy or proceeding in court for its collection shall be made, begun, or prosecuted until such notice has been mailed to the taxpayer,….

A deficiency presumes that the IRS is matching, changing, moving, eliminating numbers. The IRS is doing math.

And the Code wants a notice mailed to the taxpayer alerting him/her of what the IRS is doing.

There are procedures for enforcing a deficiency, and one is key. We have called it many names over the years - a statutory notice of deficiency, a NOD, a SNOD, a 90-day letter. These are all terms for the following notice:

Code section 6213 requires the IRS to issue a SNOD before it can enforce a deficiency.

What did the IRS fail to do with the Walkers?

Yep, it failed to send a SNOD.

Here is the Court:

With respect to the proposed levy action before us - and having determined the IRS failed to issue a Notice of Deficiency despite … being legally required to do so - we hold that the IRS may not proceed with the collection of the Assessment.”

Howaboutthat?

The Walkers won their case on an especially narrow technical point. Still, a win is a win.

Our case this time was Walker v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2026-4.